Ambiguous

War can be a rather difficult topic for us students to write; neither have we experienced war, nor do we know the exact circumstances surrounding the current wars. We get our perspectives of war from news outlets and the sort, not exactly the most accurate source of information, just saying before the essay.

Sure, it's easy to go on about how all wars are bad and that people shouldn't be killing other people. But say, when a certain dictator is ethnically purging 6 million people of a certain religion, should other countries sit back and try to negotiate peace through a lunch date? Of course not, because nothing else other than pure brute force could have stopped him.

Nothing on that level has occurred ever since, but many cases on a smaller level have. And as the laying back and sipping of tea didn't work back then, it certainly doesn't work now, when arms races and nuclear threats are knocking on the doorsteps. The recent assassination of Gaddafi highlights an example of when war is the quickest and most effective way to end a danger. The troops moved in, disposed of the target, and moved out, all while avoiding collateral damage.

But as many as there were wars necessary, far more wars were fought over trivial things and completely avoidable. Just look like the Middle East, where the people are raising their children to hate and kill each other. Why? Because they don't believe in the same man in the sky. And because that's what the man in the sky would supposedly want them to do.

There is no clear line dividing whether or not war is necessary. When the opposing side fails to attempt negotiation, war may be the way to go. But before that, understanding and toleration must be given a chance, for the future generations are sure to laugh at resorting to violence over something as petty as religion or race.